Friday, August 23, 2013

Just What *IS* The Consistent Libertarian Position on Marriage, Gay or Otherwise?

Last week (August 12 - August 17, 2013) I spent the week manning the
Libertarian Party table at the Rockingham County Fair. Our candidate for governor, Rob Sarvis, was on hand
on Friday (8/16) and spoke to many voters about his campaign.

One man who spoke to Rob at some length asked him what his position was on
gay marriage. Rob gave what is now a rather common libertarian answer --
that we were in favor of gay marriage. The man promptly said "well,
you lost me right there."

More recently, a local activist in Harrisonburg resigned from the
newly-established city committee, apparently due to his perception that the new group was in
favor of recognition of gay marriage.

These two incidents underscore what I think is a tactical error on the part
of LP activists in recent years: the practice of saying we are in favor of gay
marriage.

Several LP media releases have said essentially the same thing, including one
earlier this year from the Virginia LP.

Here is the text of the Libertarian Party's platform position on same-sex marriage:

"1.3 Personal Relationships - Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or
gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of
individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration
or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define,
license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to
choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

So let's put it this way:In a libertarian society
marriage and incorporation would be two distinctly different institutions.

Marriage would be a religious institution where two people come together to
bind their immortal souls in the presence of their creator.Government would have zero involvement in
such an institution.

Incorporation, on the other hand, would be a legal union or contract between
consenting adults in the eyes of the State. Adults, whether there are 2, 3, or
10 of them could share their lives, homes, bank accounts, etc. and live in
communes (forming a type of voluntary communism) if they so choose.

A much different world that would be.

So is the Libertarian Party in favor of gay marriage?

Libertarians actually take NO position on marriage, except for the idea that everyone has the absolute right to arrange their affairs and relationships as they wish -- without interference by any government authority.

In other words, Libertarians don't "favor" any kind of marriage, gay or otherwise -- we just want the government out of it.

When the above media release from LPVA went out, as an anarcho-cap, I would
have greatly preferred that it spoke of the actual libertarian solution to the
gay marriage issue:

- repealing all government laws meddling in marriage -- this would include repealing all subsidies, special rights, grants of privilege, restrictions, government-required blood tests; and,

- abolishing marriage licensure.

Democrats and Republicans have had ample opportunity -- for years -- to wipe the entire debate
off the table by doing exactly the above.

But as usual, they have accomplished nothing.

"Conservatives" have a majority in the Virginia state house and a
Republican is governor. Yet not a single Republican has even bothered to
*introduce* a measure to eliminate marriage licenses (much less get it to a
vote on the floor of the legislature). Not a single Republican has bothered to
introduce a measure to reform "marriage law" by simply repealing them
all and pushing marriage back into the voluntary sector; and henceforth treating marriage arrangements as we would any other contract.

Democrats and Republicans colluded to put marriage into the realm of the state
in the first place.First it was
reactionary Democrats setting up marriage licenses to prevent blacks from marrying
whites; now it's reactionary Republicans attempting to use the same licensing
law to keep others from arranging their marriage affairs as they see fit.

Conservatives and liberals alike can't have it both ways. If you are happy with
government definition of marriage, then don't blame others for trying to
capture that definition for themselves.

Remember: The government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful
enough to take everything you have.

Think about it. If Christians set up the machinery to set in law their version of morality, one day atheists, gays, Democrats, Bhuddists, polyamorists,
Islamists, or others will grab the steering wheel and use that same machinery to run over you.

Take power away from the state, and you can safely ignore everyone who
does it differently than you would prefer.

------------------------------

In some ways this is kind of a non-issue for me because I think everyone --
gay, straight, bi, lesbian -- should boycott state marriages and return
marriage to the private sector (common-law contract, churches, synagogues,
etc). Common-law marriage (which Virginia abolished many years ago) is
nevertheless still recognized in Virginia if the marriage was entered into in a
common-law state (full faith and credit, etc).

The state has NO business endorsing, or not
endorsing, marriage.

Here's an important reason: Regarding marriage, there are two widely
divergent groups of people who cannot and will not agree to a compromise -- yet
both groups are forced to pay taxes. For conservatives, it is galling
that their tax money would be used to pay for endorsing/enforcing a marriage
type that they are opposed to. For the gay & lesbian community, their
tax money pays for endorsing/enforcing a marriage type that they are left out
of. That is an inherent, permanent conflict.

No one should be forced to pay for things they don't agree
with.

In some ways, the GLBT community of the 1990's made a
gigantic strategic error calling for government licensure (and thus approval)
of same-sex marriages. Doing so energized the religio-statists and got
them out to vote. Twenty years later, and the two groups are still locked in mortal combat.

A better path would have been to calmly push to
eliminate marriage licensure altogether (why should the state be in your bedroom,
anyway?), and to train judges, arbitrators, and mediators to fairly adjudicate
marriage or partnership contract disputes.

Had this been the chosen path, the alternative lifestyle lobby might have found
its interests aligned with the hardline religious sector, which would
probably endorse getting government out of permitting what to the religious is a sacred union that should be a matter for the couple involved,
and their god.

Here is a summary review of the Libertarian position on marriage:

Libertarians favor ending all government interference in the marriage
market. For the same reason we favor repealing all restrictions on the
individual ownership of firearms, we also favor the abolition of blood tests,
marriage licenses, government definitions of marriage, and the repeal of all
laws restricting the right of individuals to agree to agree between themselves
to marry -- no matter what sex, race, religion, creed, or number are involved.

At the same time, Libertarians want to eliminate the individual income tax,
replace social security and medicare with private insurance, and get government
out of the business of dictating who one chooses to associate or not associate
with.There are tax benefits to being
married -- because there are income and estate taxes. Eliminating the special
treatment eliminates the desire for special interest legislation.

UPDATE 2/29/2014: Andrew Akers wrote a fairly succinct summary of the difficulty Libertarians have in persuading both sides of the marriage debate to give up a little:

I
submit that the real issue (for people who take issue with this) has
nothing to do with whether marriage is a legal contract unique from
other contracts.Based on my observations, the important thing for most
people is how the term "marriage" is applied.
Those opposed to "gay marriage" are often accepting of "civil unions"
for same-sex couples, whereas same-sex couples insist that the term
"marriage" be applied indiscriminately.As with many other issues, the
Libertarian position here is relatively foreign to those on both sides
of the debate.Hence what we say about "marriage" will be interpreted in
the context of the actual debate, which is primarily about the
application of a term. Libertarian "opposition to gay marriage" takes on
a different meaning in this sense.It gives the impression that we side
with religious conservatives in "preserving the sanctity" of two-person
heterosexual unions as superior to other kinds.

I tend to agree. However, we have to start somewhere. If Libertarians are too scared to speak in favor of the actual fair and free solution to the debate, who else will?